Tuesday, May 13, 2014

The right has finally abandoned its remaining shred of humanity

It used to be that the right wing pretended to have a moral compass. Pretended, in fact, to have the only true moral compass. It wasn't that they hated women and want to pay us less, take away our reproductive rights, etc.; it's that they love us so much they can't possibly leave us to our own silly devices. It isn't that they hate gay people and want to take away their rights to marry, hold a job and even exist; it's just that they love them so much they can't help but shower them in the sort of Christian compassion that will isolate, impoverish and even kill them. It's not that they hate the poor and want them to starve to death or die of treatable illness, but that they love them so much that they can't possibly do them the disservice of feeding, clothing or healing them (because, really, what sort of sick bastard would foster dependency like that? Other than Jesus, I mean). Liberals were intent on filling bellies but emptying souls, whereas conservatives focused on tending souls (and it's not for nothing that this is a task that produces no measurable results, in a scenario where suffering is actually considered beneficial and character building).

My point is, even at their most depraved, even as they embraced all sorts of demonstrably harmful and hideous things, conservatives pretended that they were doing it because it was the right thing to do. They have, apparently, decided not to bother anymore. And what was the catalyst for this sudden change?

Liberals expressing concern over hundreds of kidnapped schoolgirls. Not just kidnapped girls, but girls kidnapped by a militant Islamist group. And not just any militant Islamist group, but one apparently forcibly converting Christian girls to Islam. Forget Benghazi, the right's latest political viagra; this is the sort of story that, in any other situation, would get a rise out of Republicans that would last years. It's got all the makings of the ideal right-wing fantasy: bad Muslims. Innocent children. Persecuted Christians. Obama not declaring war on someone, somewhere, to prove that we carry the biggest stick. (And, while it's never necessary, this one even happens to be true).

So what happened? This happened.

Michelle Obama, expressing solidarity with the parents of these kidnapped children. Michelle Obama expressing concern over hundreds of children captured for sexual exploitation by a bunch of adult religious fanatics.

Now, concern over a child being kidnapped and raped -- much less, hundreds of children -- might seem like a no-brainer. It might seem like the province of any remotely decent human being, the sort of thing that even the most shriveled and stunted soul could agree with: it's terrible when children are abused, much less in such a hideous fashion.

And I think you'd be right to suppose so. But there are plenty of people eager to demonstrate just how warped their moral compasses are, to illustrate that they've long abandoned any lonely lingering shreds of humanity.

Because, in their world, it's fun to mock kidnapped and endangered children, to use them as a prop to throw a political jab at an ideological opponent.

It's entertaining to mock raising awareness of the situation (which has actually exerted pressure, by shining light on the situation, on the Nigerian government, which was previously content to do nothing).

Michelle Obama's participation really just demonstrates American powerlessness, after all. And isn't President Obama to blame?

I want to ask you, what message does this send? And then I want to ask you, is the United States really this powerless? And then if you answer yes, we are really this powerless, then isn’t Obama to blame?

Remember the movie with Robert Deniro and Dustin Hoffman called “Wag the Dog?” Funny thing, that film was released just before the Clinton-Lewinsky kabuki dance and the infamous pharmaceutical factory bombing in Sudan by President Clinton (and by the way, Monica is back in the limelight thanks to an article in Vanity Fair – but I digress – or maybe not).

Are we witnessing an Obama “Wag the Dog” moment with Boko Haram in Nigeria? I say yes.

Consider all the scandals facing the Obama administration, especially Benghazi and the Select Committee, which Rep. Nancy Pelosi referred to as a “political stunt.”

Bet you didn't see it getting back to Benghazi. But boy would you be wrong. Tens of thousands of likes and shares seem to indicate that you should never waste a good opportunity to mention BENGHAZI. To hell with kidnapped kids.

It's really not. And, come on, what's not to laugh about? (Or so the almost million people who liked, and over 150K users who shared, apparently believed):

Because, really, this is all just "cheap". It's the equivalent of making an easy payoff by rehashing decades old presidential sex scandals: cheap, cheap, cheap.

It's astonishing to think that someone, much less so many someones, would turn the kidnapping and sale of young girls into a political issue, and worse yet a source of amusement. Even though it shouldn't be, based on the course the right has been following lately. And yet it still is. Since when is the kidnap and sale, the sexual exploitation and forced conversion, of children a laughing matter? Since when is concern over that kidnapping, sale and exploitation a cause for political pettiness?

I'm afraid it's official, my friends. When the plight of kidnapped children is a cause for conservative amusement, any semblance of decency has truly died. The right's moral compass is so skewed that mocking kidnap & rape victims is now okay. And that is beyond effed up.

15 comments:

Frankly, I think the Fox news pundits are terrified that the President will find and free the kidnapped girls. Ever since he got Bin Laden, they always skirt around potential interventions like that for fear he'll actually pull it off.

Rachel, I would submit that the RIGHT has no humanity to lose. Virtues like compassion, empathy and sympathy have no meaning in their bitter, dark, twisted and hateful world. I abandoned hope for them years ago. Their behavior in the last 6 years have shown me how RIGHT I was!

Interesting article. Of course, the way it refers to the gay hate crap by the religious right as "Christian" is idiotic and not even close to what Christian really is, but the basic thrust of the article is good. It's just been written by someone who either doesn't know or doesn't care about the teachings of Jesus Christ, and can't be bothered to actually, you know, find out before writing.

Steve, She's not talking about the 'teachings of Christ' but rather she's talking about the actions of those that proclaim the loudest to be followers of Christ. It's ironic that they claim to be doing things in the 'name of Christ' but those things directly contradict what Christ actually was trying to teach.

I said "the sort of Christian compassion that will isolate, impoverish and even kill them". While I'm not going to play the "true Scotsman" game (are gay-bashers "true Christians"? "Fake Christians"?), the phrase "sort of" implies (correctly) that this is but one of other types of Christianity. These people claim to be Christian, they cite the Bible as their reason for homophobia -- and even denounce nice Christians as "fake". They are Christians. Asshole Christians, but Christians all the same. They are not all Christians, or even necessarily good Christians, and I did not say or imply that they were. They are certainly not compassionate, although they claim to be (I've actually written about that more than once in the past: http://rachelshobbithole.blogspot.com/2013/08/hate-sin-love-sinner-is-crock.html, http://rachelshobbithole.blogspot.com/2013/03/dear-christians-who-oppose-gay-marriage.html, etc.). Nor did I ever say that Jesus was a homophobe.

No, you didn't say (or imply) that Jesus was a homophobic, but that was kind of the point. Being Christian is, by definition, trying to live or act according to the teachings of or attributed to Jesus Christ. That IS the definition, although being a "good Christian" has been warped and expanded to mean almost anything anyone connected with organized religion wants to include, but these additions are simply not true. Being Christian is being Christian and everything else is garbage. And anyone, no matter their motive or context, that uses those garbage additions to make a point is just adding to and helping cement the utter crap that is called Christianity.

Steve, with all due respect, your point -- even if valid -- is essentially meaningless. You might think that there is a "pure Christianity" that homophobia strictly violates, and you might even be right (I'd disagree, but it's not really relevant), but in actual practice, from the beginning of the faith on, homophobia has run deep within the religion. So have misogyny and anti-Semitism. The latter has been more successfully eradicated of late, and the misogyny is being softened. But homophobia finds its greatest strength in this country (and others) in religion. You might think they're bad practitioners of the faith, but they ARE practitioners.

They're certainly practitioners of something, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. And, with all due respect, saying that my point is not valid is saying that the actual definition of Christianity isn't valid. Homophobia has indeed been a recurrent theme in most religions, as almost all kinds of hate and persecution as well as a host of other inhuman and repugnant practices - none of which have anything at all to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. People can call themselves anything they want - including Christian. That doesn't make it so. But OTHER people labeling religious zealots as Christian gives validity to looking down on true Christianity. Simply trying to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Which were love of man (including especially enemies), tolerance, forgiveness, etc.

All I'm trying to say here is that anyone can claim to be anything. The claim is meaningless. Until supported and amplified by others.

In practical terms, the distinction is meaningless: hordes of people, since the inception of Christianity, have been attributing their hatred of gays (and the resultant consequences) to Christianity. You say they are not accurately interpreting Christian doctrine, and it's possible you're right (they're certainly weighting certain portions more heavily than others, including the actual words of Jesus). They say you are not accurately interpreting the Bible (you are also giving preference to some portions of it over others).But again, we're getting into the realm of "no true Scotsman". They read the Bible, they cite the Bible, they say they are Christian. You cite the Bible and say you are Christian. Who is right? Both of you. Just as there are different flavors of Muslims, Buddhists, etc., there are different types of Christians. You weight the portions of the Bible that talk about love and nice stuff more heavily. They weight the judgey/stoney parts more heavily. I would say that makes you a better person. But both are Christian.

I don't say I am a Christian, although that probably doesn't much matter. But thinking or saying that knowing or even paying attention to the Bible is Christianity is just rubbish. I mean, the Old Testament of the Bible - the part that's ALWAYS quoted to support any of that hatred crap has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Christ. It was written and around before he was born and much of his own teachings flew in the face of much of it.

Just because a particular brand of particular lie has been around and repeated for a long time doesn't make it any less a lie. And calling things that contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ "Christian" is a lie. Maybe an unthinking lie, but a lie nonetheless. Repeating a lie over and over in spite of the evidence and facts that refute it is the kink of thing Fox News does. Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not comparing you to Bill O'Reilly or one of the other contemptible idiots who claim to be "news" people. I'm simply pointing out that repeating a patently untrue justification for hate just lends weight to that justification being used.

Okay, now we're going to disagree. The NT is the only record we have of Jesus, so we necessarily need it for an understanding of him. The OT, and the Bible in general, absolutely have to do with Christianity. In Matthew 5, Jesus himself is purported to have said:

"17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

The NT might supersede the OT, but it does not abolish it. Nor is it irrelevant to the religion.

I guess so. Things would be much simpler - and much more accurate if how something was defined was actually based on fact instead of on the interpretations of obviously biased people. There are many interpretations of the Bible. There are almost as many as there are religions. But again, those religions referring to themselves as Christian doesn't make make them Christian. Christianity is, by it's very definition, the study and practice of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Period. Bible thumping may be what Catholics, Episcopalians, Southern Baptists and most organized religions do, but if their teachings and traditions contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ, they simply are not Christian. Not by any logical definition of the word Christian. And it doesn't matter how many times those religions and/or practices are referred to as Christian. They just aren't. It's got a lot more history behind it, but it's the same exact kind of logic as when Hannity and his ilk refer to Cliven Bundy as some kind of patriot or folk hero. The man is just a deadbeat criminal who uses fake patriotism to justify criminal violence and theft. Much like most religions use and have historically used fake Christianity to justify bloody acts of barbarism. Acts of the sort that Jesus Christ (thus the word Christian) abhorred.

Hey, fantastic blog! Just want to add a small correction to your comments on Ann Coulter. She is not "mocking" the plight of the girls, rather she is trying to ride the wave of publicity about them. Still stinks, but not the same thing as mocking.

I somehow missed this one. :) I agree, in a sense, Peter: she might not actually find the girls' situation laughable so much as useful. However, I also concur with Jola -- the way she makes use of their plight is through mockery. In other words, her goal might well be self promotion; but she is mocking their plight in order to self promote.